I don't understand poetry, /lit/. I get rhyming and the whole syllable-focused lyricism of some poetry, but I don't understand "freeform" poetry. Why do you move on to the next line, why is it not just written as prose?
It's to make one sound artsy, intelligent, and important. The best-written and recited free verse allows the reader (or listener) to practically smell the rancid machiatos coming from the poet's asshole.
>but I don't understand "freeform" poetry.
Let's get this clear
Most "free verse" poets who were good also didn't really write free verse
Whitman wrote long lines that weren't in iambic pentameter but they are incredibly music and the rhythm is memorable from only a single read out loud. He's a formal poet.
Ezra Pound wrote in "free verse" in that he played it by ear. Music in the same was as Whitman. Even messed around with quantitative meter. Very musical.
TS Eliot had "le ghost of meter" in his poems. It shows. His verse is musical.
It's only once you get into the group that worshiped WC Williams and his successors that you find shitty free verse.
Read Whitman out loud though. When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd is incredibly lyrical.
> "freeform" poetry
as I've just shown through example it can be done extremely well. Though most people just use it as an excuse to write shitty poetry that would be shitty even if it were in meter.
How does any other author decide to start a new line, or paragraph, or chapter?
There are 'conventional' places to use them, and unconventional ones. You follow a whim, and then peel off the excess.
You may as well ask: "How do people paint abstract art?" The answer is much the same.
>It's to make one sound artsy, intelligent, and important. The best-written and recited free verse allows the reader (or listener) to practically smell the rancid machiatos coming from the poet's asshole.
This guy gets it.
I don't mean why as in the reason behind, but ratger why as in what specific mechanic is being used to make the statement in the way it's being made. So like, with prose there's a logical basis for concluding a paragraph, as it completes an argument or period of time, but in the case of freeform poetry it's like the author is starting a new line completely arbitrarily. And also, why express it in broken, stunted bursts if you can simply convert it to prose and have a totality in your meaning.
>Why do anything other than prose?
I admire the sentiment, and cherished it myself during my undergrad years.
I suppose it's like Jazz - the holistic properties of the work, converging around a particular emotional response, find a nebulous freedom that simply does not exist in rigid artforms.
You are, as always, welcome to call a poem 'shit', but I'll say this much - if your days are filled with a lust for concrete meaning, the humanities may not be your highest calling.
well, read a lot of poetry (you should read at least 40-100 poets from every century since the 11th AD, and all the greeks and romans) and figure it all out yourself. You only learn about poetry by reading and writing it.
There's so much difference throughout the history of poetry. Poetry from even Shakespeare looks different from that of the Metaphysicals. The Metaphysicals are radically different from the romantics and augustans.
> 40-100 poets
Yeah nah, not everyone has a free decade to read entire works of countless poets since the 11th AD (chain-reading can be dangerous.)
Op just read at least 200-300 poems from every 50 years since the 11th AD.
That would be slam poetry. Pretty much all slam poetry is written in free verse, but a pretty minuscule fraction of free verse poetry could be categorized as slam stuff. The delivery, performance, etc. are also important in slam, but if you're one of those "it's just a monologue lol not real poetry" people I doubt you care that much